by our friends the russkies (http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html)

act surprised, the warmers omitted the tep stations that did nto suit the desired findings

scroll down toward the bottom for this

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

PoliCon

12-18-2009, 12:28 AM

It's all lies! The Goreicle says so! Thou shalt not balspheme the reorganized church of global climate change or her prophet the Goreicle!!

wilbur

12-19-2009, 12:08 PM

Or not:

The problem here is the IEA report does not support the claims made in the news story. I've reproduced the final graph from the report below. The red curve is the temperature trend using the 121 Russian stations that CRU has released data for, while the blue hockey stick is from a larger set of 476 stations. I've put them on top of the CRU temperatures for northern extratropics. The red and blue curves agree very well in the period after 1950, thus confirming the CRU temperatures. Well done, IEA!

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/crutem3%2Brussia.png

The red and blue curves do diverge in the 19th century, but the one that provides more support for anthropogenic global warming is the blue hockey stick.(IE, the temperature plot that includes ALL the stations) The red curve shows warming in the 19th century before there were significant CO2 emissions, so it weakens the case that global warming is man-made. If CRU (not HAdley as claimed in the Russian news story) have "tampered" with the data, it would seem that they must have been trying to make a case against AGW.

...

Steve McIntyre will no doubt be demanding the IEA's data and code for their study. No doubt.

we'll just wait till someone with credibility validates.
if there is anyone...

FlaGator

12-19-2009, 01:16 PM

We're automatically suppose to accept the output of known lairs and con men when they defend their lies?

coach

12-19-2009, 01:32 PM

We're automatically suppose to accept the output of known liars and con men when they defend their lies?

the catch-22 is funny. cant report the denial without acknowledging the issue. the MSM has caused such problems for itself by abandoning any sort of journalistic integrity.

wilbur

12-19-2009, 01:44 PM

We're automatically suppose to accept the output of known lairs and con men when they defend their lies?

I would hope you that you don't automatically accept output from anyone FlaGator.

But unfortunately, thats exactly how you operate, as long as the output agrees with what you want to believe. Where are your cries for "the data" in regards to the vague claims of this economic Russian think tank? Oh thats right, you don't care. The bias news stories have provided you with what little excuse you needed to drop any pretence of bothersome objectivity, while you go out and scream fraud and hoax at the top of your lungs, facts be damned.

And I wast aware that Tim Lambert, of the Deltoid blog was a 'proven con man'. Or do you just not even bother with trying to maintain any ounce of intellectual credibility anymore?

SarasotaRepub

12-19-2009, 08:35 PM

GLOBAL WARMING causes Blizzard to hit Washington D.C.
with two feet of snow!!!

AlGore says..."Hey, don't blame me, I'm still trying to get people to fork over a thousand bucks to have a pic taken with me."

QUICK ! send money to Mugabe in Zimbabwe while there is still time to stop globla warming !

FlaGator

12-19-2009, 09:42 PM

I would hope you that you don't automatically accept output from anyone FlaGator.

But unfortunately, thats exactly how you operate, as long as the output agrees with what you want to believe. Where are your cries for "the data" in regards to the vague claims of this economic Russian think tank? Oh thats right, you don't care. The bias news stories have provided you with what little excuse you needed to drop any pretence of bothersome objectivity, while you go out and scream fraud and hoax at the top of your lungs, facts be damned.

And I wast aware that Tim Lambert, of the Deltoid blog was a 'proven con man'. Or do you just not even bother with trying to maintain any ounce of intellectual credibility anymore?

Anyone who is still pushing the AGW science is a con man and a propagandist and now most of the world knows it... except for those who have so much of their self esteem invested in always being right...

coach

12-19-2009, 09:47 PM

Anyone who is still pushing the AGW science is a con man and a propagandist and now most of the world knows it... except for those who have so much of their self esteem invested in always being right...

I loved this line from Rasmussen on polling showing people are increasingly against this stuff.

President Obama flew to Denmark at week’s end on an urgent mission to bring consensus to the United Nations summit on global warming, but many voters just don’t see the problem the way the president and other world leaders do.

SarasotaRepub

12-19-2009, 10:22 PM

Wilbur likes to call people here dolts on Global Warming but he's missing the point that the Mother Earth seems to be making fools of the "scientists" that seem hellbent to save "her" by ruining this country's economy. POTUS coming home from a Global Warming Conference--greeted by a blizzard??? Too funny.

I'm wondering if anyone expected the GW groups to just give up? Of course they won't. They won't if a mini ice age started tomorrow, they'd simply call it a
"micro-trend" or some other term. GW would always be lurking...just behind
the ice sheet. :D

Wilbur, the GW groups are on the defensive and protesting a tad too much. I'm pretty good at smelling a con job and con jobs always involve big money. GW is big money.

Rockntractor

12-19-2009, 10:43 PM

Cold is just another kind of warm.

Big Guy

12-19-2009, 11:39 PM

DC is expected to get several inches of global warming tonight. The Nashville airport is reporting several delays due to global warming. Soldiers are stuck in airports in Chicago, Detroit, New York and DC due to global warming.

Where is Gore and Wilbur, please help, help us or we are doomed. :D

wilbur

12-20-2009, 01:48 AM

Wilbur, the GW groups are on the defensive and protesting a tad too much. I'm pretty good at smelling a con job and con jobs always involve big money. GW is big money.

Perhaps you should turn your nose towards the big money on the other side - money interests with orders of magnitude more dollars at stake than any scientist jockeying for grant money. What do you smell there?

Sonnabend

12-20-2009, 01:53 AM

Perhaps you should turn your nose towards the big money on the other side - money interests with orders of magnitude more dollars at stake than any scientist jockeying for grant money. What do you smell there?

Yeah yeah, they are all in the pay of "big oil"...and of course there is no proof of this stupid assertion other than the "conspiracy angle" which is yet another lie.

Prove it.

wilbur

12-20-2009, 01:59 AM

Yeah yeah, they are all in the pay of "big oil"...and of course there is no proof of this stupid assertion other than the "conspiracy angle" which is yet another lie.

Prove it.

The "conspiracy angle" is the one note tune of the anti-global warming crowd, are you fucking serious? It seems only natural they should see them other places as well..

Sonnabend

12-20-2009, 07:35 AM

The "conspiracy angle" is the one note tune of the anti-global warming crowd, are you fucking serious?

You're the one making allegations.

It seems only natural they should see them other places as well..

No, I am asking you to substantiate this

Perhaps you should turn your nose towards the big money on the other side - money interests with orders of magnitude more dollars at stake than any scientist jockeying for grant money. What do you smell there?

Prove it.

And by the way, Mr Expert, just what ARE your qualifications in climatology?

What makes you think this is particularly unique. It is only unique if you cherry-pick the time frame. If you look to the longer history, it not only is not very unique, it is rather MILD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE&feature=player_embedded

Constitutionally Speaking

12-20-2009, 07:54 AM

Perhaps you should turn your nose towards the big money on the other side - money interests with orders of magnitude more dollars at stake than any scientist jockeying for grant money. What do you smell there?

I've got news for you, FAR more money has been extorted from taxpayers to promote the anthropogenic global warming view than what the oil industry has.